**In re Marriage of C.D. & G.D.** When issuing custody and visitation orders, a trial court’s paramount concern is the best interests of the child. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3020| Fam. Code § 3020]], subd. (a).) To determine those interests, the court must consider whether the parent seeking custody or visitation has a history of abusing the child. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3011| § 3011]], subd. (a)(2)(A)(i).) If there are sexual abuse allegations, the court may order an expert to evaluate those allegations. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3118|§ 3118]], subd. (a).) But such an evaluation is not the only evidence that can support a finding of sexual abuse; rather, all “relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties” should be considered when determining whether a parent sexually abused a child. ([[Cal. Fam. Code § 3044|§ 3044]], subd. (e).) Father’s proposed rule similarly conflicts with caselaw and statutes outside the Family Code. It would upend longstanding California law that “\[a] trial court is not required to accept . . . expert opinion at face value” ([[Case Law/B/Battenburg, In re Marriage of (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1338]] 28 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1345), a principle that permits the court to deviate from an expert’s custody and visitation recommendations (see, e.g., [[Case Law/O/Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425]] 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 436) instead of acting as a “mere rubber-stamp” for what the expert thinks best ([[Case Law/D/DeRoque, In re Marriage of (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1090]] 74 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1096). ![[B318718.PDF]] <!-- citation-library:start --> ## Citation reference C.D. & G.D., In re Marriage of (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 378, 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 405 > [!info] Working notes > This is a personal working note. Citation details are for reference; opinion and current-status verification may still be pending. <!-- citation-library:end -->